ORDERS:
ORDER AND DECISION
This matter comes before me upon petition for hearing following the denial of a septic tank permit
application for a portion of Lot 6A, Cascade Circle, Bennettsville, Marlboro County, South
Carolina, by the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (hereinafter
referred to as "DHEC"). A hearing was held on July 17, 1995. The issues considered were: the
site suitability of the property for a septic tank system and whether DHEC properly denied
Petitioner's septic tank permit application.
FINDINGS OF FACT
By a preponderance of the evidence, I find:
(1) The location, being a portion of Lot 6A, Cascade Circle, Bennettsville, Marlboro County,
South Carolina, (hereinafter referred to as "the property") is a lot of approximately two acres
owned by Petitioner.
(2) Petitioner applied to DHEC for a septic tank permit for the property on February 21, 1995.
(3) Petitioner seeks the septic tank permit to allow placement of a mobile home on the lot as a
residential dwelling.
(4) Lot 6, Cascade Circle, Bennettsville, Marlboro County, South Carolina, as shown on a plat
for Troop C. Crosland, by J.M. Jackson, Jr., Reg. C.E., dated December 15, 1942, and revised
December 15, 1971 (attached to the application as part of Respondent's Exhibit #1), originally
contained 5.37 acres. It has been subdivided by the Adams family as follows:
(a) The eastern portion, now designated as Lot 6B and being triangular in shape, is owned
by Parrish, and contains a house(with a septic tank system).
(b) A portion of Lot 6A, being less than one acre, is owned by Ronnie Adams, Petitioner's
brother. It contains a mobile home and camping trailer and two separate septic tank systems.
(c) The property in question, also a portion of Lot 6A, being approximately two acres, is owned
by Petitioner, and is bordered by lands of McLain, Shimmel, and Parrish.
(d) The portion of Lot 6A lying between Petitioner's lot and Ronnie Adams' lot is a lot owned
by Shimmel, Petitioner's sister and brother-in-law. It contains a house and one septic tank
system.
(5) DHEC Environmental Quality Manager Drake Rogers visited the property on March 21,
1995, for a site evaluation. Six (6) separate borings were made and soil absorption tests
conducted. The results of the tests indicated that the maximum seasonal high water table was no
deeper than eight inches (8") below the ground surface for any of the boring sites.
(6) Petitioner was informed of the results of the site evaluation and denial of the permit
application for a conventional system by letter dated March 21, 1995.
(7) Barry L. Mims, of the Pee Dee Public Health District of DHEC, visited the property on
March 28, 1995, conducted a site evaluation, and confirmed Drake Rogers' evaluation. Petitioner
was informed by letter dated April 6, 1995.
(8) DHEC received a letter from Petitioner on April 10, 1995, notifying DHEC of his intent to
appeal the denial.
(9) Mark S. Marriner of the DHEC Bureau of Environmental Health, Barry Mims, and Drake
Rogers reevaluated the property on April 21, 1995. Six (6) separate borings were made and soil
absorption tests conducted. The results of the tests indicated that the maximum seasonal high
water table was less than twelve inches (12") below the ground surface for each of the boring
sites.
(10) Petitioner was informed of the results of the April 21, 1995 site evaluation and formally
informed of the denial of the permit application by Mark Marriner of DHEC by letter dated May
1, 1995.
(11) As a courtesy, Drake Rogers conducted a site evaluation on April 27, 1995, for a lot owned
by James and Ophelia J. McLain (shown as Lot 9, at Plat Book 28, Page 63, Marlboro County
Clerk of Court), a lot adjoining Petitioner's property, to determine whether the adjoining lot could
support a septic tank system to meet Petitioner's needs. Four (4) separate borings were made and
soil absorption tests conducted. The results of the tests indicated that the maximum seasonal high
water table was no deeper than eight inches (8") below the ground surface for any of the boring
sites.
(12) DHEC did not make and Petitioner did not request site evaluations of other adjoining lots.
(13) Petitioner petitioned for a review of the DHEC decision, precipitating the July 17, 1995
hearing before the Administrative Law Judge Division.
(14) A conventional septic tank system requires that the maximum seasonal high water table for
the proposed site be at least twenty-nine inches (29") below the ground surface for the site to
accommodate the system.
(15) A modified conventional septic tank system requires that the maximum seasonal high water
table for the proposed site be at least twenty-one inches (21") below the ground surface for the
site to accommodate the system.
(16) An ultra shallow experimental septic system requires that the maximum seasonal high water
table for the proposed site be at least twelve inches (12") below the ground surface for the site to
accommodate the system. Additionally, the ultra shallow system cannot be installed upon sloping
terrain nor within soil with clay content.
(17) The seasonal high water table of the property is less than twelve inches (12") below the
natural ground surface of the property.
(18) Clay deposits are present in the soil within twelve inches (12") of the ground surface.
(19) Other lots in close proximity to Petitioner's lot currently have septic tanks.
(20) DHEC was unaware of or unfamiliar with the existence of septic tank systems on lots
adjoining Petitioner's lot.
(21) There was confusion at the hearing with the exact boundary lines and location of Petitioner's
lot.
(22) The maximum seasonal water table is that soil depth at which water saturation reaches its
highest level. Absorption, filtration, and aerobic treatment of effluent requires unsaturated soil.
Saturation disrupts the treatment process and allows pollutants to be carried great distances to
contaminate drinking water, surface waters, and spread disease-producing organisms.
(23) The property is unsuitable to support a septic tank system.
(24) It is unclear whether the septic tank systems on the other portions of Lot 6A could support
Petitioner's waste treatment needs.
(25) It is unclear whether the soil conditions and size of the other portions of Lot 6A could
support a septic tank system for Petitioner's property.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact, I conclude as a matter of law the following:
(1) The Administrative Law Judge Division has subject matter jurisdiction in this action pursuant
to S.C. Code Ann. § 48-1-50 (1987); S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-600(B) (Supp. 1994), and S.C.
Code Ann. § 1-23-310, et seq. (1986 & Supp. 1994).
(2) S.C. Code Ann. § 44-1-140(11) (1976) provides the authority for DHEC to promulgate
regulations relating to septic tanks.
(3) 24A S.C. Code Ann. Regs. 61-56 (1976) is the applicable DHEC regulation governing
individual waste disposal systems and the issuance of septic tank permits.
(4) Petitioner's property being a portion of Lot 6A, Cascade Circle, Bennettsville, Marlboro
County, South Carolina, does not meet the minimum site conditions for an individual sewage
treatment and disposal system under S.C. Regs. 61-56, Section V.
ORDER
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the septic tank permit application of Petitioner for the
property is hereby denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that DHEC shall, no later than ten days from receipt of this order,
conduct further site evaluations for lots and existing systems adjoining Petitioner's property,
specifically including lots owned by Parrish and Shimmel, upon receiving landowner consent. If
minimum site conditions pursuant to S.C. Regs. 61-56, Section V, exist to allow for any type of
individual sewage treatment and disposal system to provide Petitioner with a means of using his
property, DHEC is ordered to grant the permit, upon consent of the affected landowner(s). If
minimum site conditions are not found to exist, the permit is denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that DHEC shall file with this Court a copy of the final evaluation
and action. Upon receipt of that evaluation and action report, this matter is closed and all
administrative remedies exhausted.
___________________________________
STEPHEN P. BATES
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
July __, 1995
Columbia, South Carolina
|
